Quadratic Twist-Noncommutative Gauge Theory.

Studies of noncommutative gauge theory have mainly focused on noncommutative spacetimes with constant noncommutative structure, with little known about actions for noncommutative 4D Yang-Mills theory beyond this case. We construct an action for Yang-Mills theory on a quadratically noncommutative spacetime, i.e., of quantum-plane type, obtained from a Drinfeld twist, with star-gauge symmetry. Applied to supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory, this gives a candidate AdS/CFT dual of string theory on a related deformation of AdS_{5}×S^{5}, which is expected to be integrable in the planar limit.

Combining automatic plan integrity check (APIC) with standard plan document and checklist method to reduce errors in treatment planning.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To report our experience of combining three approaches of an automatic plan integrity check (APIC), a standard plan documentation, and checklist methods to minimize errors in the treatment planning process. MATERIALS/METHODS: We developed APIC program and standardized plan documentation via scripting in the treatment planning system, with an enforce function of APIC usage. We used a checklist method to check for communication errors in patient charts (referred to as chart errors). Any errors in the plans and charts (referred to as the planning errors) discovered during the initial chart check by the therapists were reported to our institutional Workflow Enhancement (WE) system. Clinical Implementation of these three methods is a progressive process while the APIC was the major progress among the three methods. Thus, we chose to compared the total number of planning errors before (including data from 2013 to 2014) and after (including data from 2015 to 2018) APIC implementation. We assigned the severity of these errors into five categories: serious (S), near miss with safety net (NM), clinical interruption (CLI), minor impediment (MI), and bookkeeping (BK). The Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 253 planning error forms, containing 272 errors, were submitted during the study period, representing an error rate of 3.8%, 3.1%, 2.1%, 0.8%, 1.9% and 1.3% of total number of plans in these years respectively. A marked reduction of planning error rate in the S and NM categories was statistically significant (P < 0.01): from 0.6% before APIC to 0.1% after APIC. The error rate for all categories was also significantly reduced (P < 0.01), from 3.4% before APIC and 1.5% per plan after APIC. CONCLUSION: With three combined methods, we reduced both the number and the severity of errors significantly in the process of treatment planning.

Departmental Workload and Physician Errors in Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to evaluate measures of increased departmental workload in relation to the occurrence of physician-related errors and incidents reaching the patient in radiation oncology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All data were collected for the year 2013. Errors were defined as forms received by our departmental process improvement team; of these forms, only those relating to physicians were included in the study. Incidents were defined as serious errors reaching the patient requiring appropriate action; these were reported through a separate system. Workload measures included patient volumes and physician schedules and were obtained through departmental records for daily and monthly data. Errors and incidents were analyzed for relation with measures of workload using logistic regression modeling. RESULTS: Ten incidents occurred in the year. The number of patients treated per day was a significant factor relating to incidents (P < 0.003). However, the fraction of department physicians off-duty and the ratio of patients to physicians were not found to be significant factors relating to incidents. Ninety-one physician-related errors were identified, and the ratio of patients to physicians (rolling average) was a significant factor relating to errors (P < 0.03). The number of patients and the fraction of physicians off-duty were not significant factors relating to errors.A rapid increase in patient treatment visits may be another factor leading to errors and incidents. All incidents and 58% of errors occurred in months where there was an increase in the average number of fields treated per day from the previous month; 6 of the 10 incidents occurred in August, which had the highest average increase at 26%. CONCLUSIONS: Increases in departmental workload, especially rapid changes, may lead to higher occurrence of errors and incidents in radiation oncology. When the department is busy, physician errors may be perpetuated owing to an overwhelmed departmental checks system, leading to incidents reaching the patient. Insights into workload and workflow will allow for the development of targeted approaches to preventing errors and incidents.

Workflow enhancement (WE) improves safety in radiation oncology: putting the WE and team together.

PURPOSE: To review the impact of a workflow enhancement (WE) team in reducing treatment errors that reach patients within radiation oncology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: It was determined that flaws in our workflow and processes resulted in errors reaching the patient. The process improvement team (PIT) was developed in 2010 to reduce errors and was later modified in 2012 into the current WE team. Workflow issues and solutions were discussed in PIT and WE team meetings. Due to tensions within PIT that resulted in employee dissatisfaction, there was a 6-month hiatus between the end of PIT and initiation of the renamed/redesigned WE team. In addition to the PIT/WE team forms, the department had separate incident forms to document treatment errors reaching the patient. These incident forms are rapidly reviewed and monitored by our departmental and institutional quality and safety groups, reflecting how seriously these forms are treated. The number of these incident forms was compared before and after instituting the WE team. RESULTS: When PIT was disbanded, a number of errors seemed to occur in succession, requiring reinstitution and redesign of this team, rebranded the WE team. Interestingly, the number of incident forms per patient visits did not change when comparing 6 months during the PIT, 6 months during the hiatus, and the first 6 months after instituting the WE team (P=.85). However, 6 to 12 months after instituting the WE team, the number of incident forms per patient visits decreased (P=.028). After the WE team, employee satisfaction and commitment to quality increased as demonstrated by Gallup surveys, suggesting a correlation to the WE team. CONCLUSIONS: A team focused on addressing workflow and improving processes can reduce the number of errors reaching the patient. Time is necessary before a reduction in errors reaching patients will be seen.